Re: [tied] Re: -s -> -i

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:16:48 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:08:21 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> >A nice chance to push my shibboleth theory
>> >1) General confusion between nom. and acc. pl. in provincial
>dialects.
>> >2) East Rome (incl. Italy) opts for generalizing the nom: -i, -e
>> >3) West Rome therefore opts for generalizing the acc. -s
>>
>> But there is no "West Rome" here. French, Provençal and Rhaetic
>(perhaps also
>> Northern Italian dialects) retained both the nom.pl. (OFr. mur) and
>acc. pl.
>> (OFr. murs).
>True, I disregarded the Old French
>
>-s Ø
> Ø -s
>
>pattern. But in my eyes see here only the absence of -i.

The -i is absent because in Old French _all_ final vowels had been dropped
(except -a). But the -i is there in the Rhaeto-Romance nom. pl.

>Do you have any direct evidence for examples of a development -h > -
>ç ? It sounds rather Procrustean to me.

/s/ > /y/ is seen in Occitan and Catalan (vassaletu "little vassal" > vaslet >
Cat. vailet, Gasc. bailet "boy"), especially in Gascon: aine < asne "donkey",
nai < nas "nose", nui < nus "we". There is of course also Ancient Greek *esmi >
eimi (but <ei> can stand for /ey/ or for /e:/ with compensatory lengthening).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...